About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
understand if he is indeed conscious and does survive before reading him miranda rights; is that correct? >> i believe molly line will be talking about that a little bit as well. there is a loophole. there is a way they don't have to. so he was not read his miranda rights to allow to ask questions of him. we don't know if questions have been asked. they may have asked questions of him when he was under the situation he was in, of course being pretty seriously injured. they do believe he is going to make it. that was something, not only important for them to do that because that is what we do in this society but important because of this investigation. last night we were told he was being brought here for treatment. we weren't too far behind the ambulance. as you made your way through boston, you could see many of the businesses reopened. you saw restaurants and bars reopened. at one point there was a small college and 500 students had gone into the streets and blocked off all four lanes cheering, holding signs and as first responders and medical teams came through that had nothing to do
okayed the suspension of the suspect's miranda rights. is that a temporary suspension? >> reporter: yes, by law it is. it's called the public safety exception to the miranda rule. normally you have to tell someone they have a right to remain silent and if you don't, then you can't use anything they tell you in court. so that's why the miranda warning is given. but there is an exception. you don't have to do it if there's a possible threat to public safety. and here obviously there's a concern about whether there are potential accomplices. investigators say they haven't found any. or other explosives. they say they haven't found any of those either but that's what they want to ask him. and this exception probably begins to expire the moment you invoke it so it's probably no good for more than a day or two but nonetheless they can do that. afterwards they'll have to give him his miranda warning and say whether he'll continue to answer questions. the justice department says even in very serious cases like this, most people in custody do continue to talk. >> pete, who's going to be interrog
to know and interrogate him at this point without reading him his miranda rights. i want you to meet a former deputy assistant director of the fbi's counterterrorism division. you handled practically every high profile case of bombing that we've seen in this country, including the unabomber case and the olympic bombing. thanks so much for being with us. >> good morning, jamie, you're welcome. >> we had chance to talk in the middle of the night the other night. >> we did. >> now we can reflect. we have the suspect in custody. it seems to me this is a huge investigation still, even though there's tons of evidence. you have multiple crime scenes, multiple devices, and a million questions. what will the fbi want to know first? >> well, now the investigation really gets underway, and we talked last night in the middle of the night about the search for the subjects, but now we're really going to focus in on how did these people live? how did they exist? what were they doing in the months and the years preceding these bombings, and particularly in the weeks and days before they actually com
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)